Prince : The Hits/The B-Sides
NME rating: 6/10
...genius or utter imbecile?...

Prince: genius or utter imbecile? The answer, as is often the way in pop music, is 'a little bit of the former and a rather more sizeable amount of the latter', and so this arduous trudge through 56 tracks across three CDs is a rollercoaster ride through sewers of bilge and the occasional waterfall of pop diamonds.

You'll know most of the good stuff already - 'Raspberry Beret' and 'Little Red Corvette' are perfect, gleaming pop, 'Gett Off' a masterful humpathon of pornographic funk, 'Sign O' The Times' quite simply one of the great singles of the modern era.

However, one unfortunate adjunct of being considered a genius by so many is that one tends to relax one's bollocks filter somewhat, and Prince at his self-indulgent worst is a veritable monolith of, by turns, lyrical whimsy and laboured crudeness, anaemic funk and dishwater-weak MOR balladry. There's too much good stuff on here to render it moot, but by God, it needs someone to go at the tracklisting with some big-ass secateurs.

Pete Cashmore

http://www.nme.com/reviews/prince/7643

I must be honest, I'm pretty shocked with this review. I know NME have been hating on Prince for years, but they gave him much love back in the day (that I can recall), I just wish the reviewer had used examples of the 'anaemic funk' and 'dishwater-weak MOR balladry' that he's referring to. Any guesses which songs he's talking about?!?

Pete Cashmore reviewed an album with Pink Cashmere on it?

Anx said:

That's the dishwater-weak MOR reviewer, right?

leecaldon said:

i just thought it was funny that his name rhymes perfectly with that song title.

Aside from the references to the songs 'Raspberry Beret' and 'Little Red Corvette' etc, This sounds more like a review of Crystal Ball than a review of Hits/B-sides.

Not surprised - NME has completely moved away from funk / soul / RnB and the reviewers have a totally different mindset. I guess it's difficult to review albums that are outside of the musical field you normally listen to, hence you get reviews such as this one. It's a valid opinion (just not right )

I personally don't give such reviews the time of day. I started reading one review of 3121 but didn't get further than, "Prince's first album in five years". Hmmm, so no "One Nite Alone", "One Nite Alone Live", "Xpectation", "N.E.W.S.", "The Chocolate Invasion", "The Slaughterhouse" & "Musicology" then!!

Why don't reviewers research?????

It's a greatest hits album. Why such an awful review? Many of those songs had been out for years before "The Hits/B-Sides" came out. The only songs that were new were "Pink Cashmere" and "Pope". I really hope that he hated all these songs on their original albums, otherwise he's a total dumbass. I still don't understand why people even review greatest hits albums. You've already heard and reviewed the songs before, why do it again?

Ultimately, reviews are only one person's view regardless of which publication they represent, so it doesn't matter what opinion is published in any paper or magazine.

I remember one reviewer who, before writing their review of 'Come', actually stated that they'd never liked Prince's work. So why the hell did the publication allow them to review the album? What was the point?
It proved to me that reviews don't mean jack shit and music critics are just paid to talk shite.

Haystack said:

Anx said:

Coincidence? Or fate?